86% of Americans think women are "tough enough to be President of the United States." And 85% have "a willingness to cast a ballot for a well qualified woman presidential candidate."
When the choices are Clinton and Rice, thankfully Hillary Clinton comes out ahead.
Fully 58% say Clinton is 'tough enough,' while only 46% feel that way about Rice.
I'm happy to hear that more people are comfortable with the thought of a woman president than they have been in the past, but can we please reframe the question?
If we're going to use yesteryear's stereotypes to assess a woman's chances at the White House, then how about a little gender fairness in the stereotypes?
Can we please have a poll asking if the male candidates are 'soft enough' not to strut around the world stage in macho dress-up insulting and ostracizing everyone who disagree with them?
Can we please have a poll asking if the male candidates are 'soft enough' to be above making enemies and insulting girls, women and others by calling people names like 'girly-men'...
TGW also links to a Washington Monthly article by Carl M. Cannon, making a compelling case for Hillary's electability. There's also a counterbalancing article by Amy Sullivan. I haven't read it yet, but I've had a lot of love for Sullivan pieces in the past.
Side note: Cannon starts with a vignette about his father, Lou Cannon, the author of several books about Ronald Reagan that are definitive and well-worth reading. I'm not saying that only from a left perspective--Cannon's third book on Reagan was produced in association with the Ronald Reagan Library and Museum, and contains a CD of his speeches. And I'm still recommending it. If that's not a ringing endorsement, I don't know what it.
No comments:
Post a Comment